Your English writing platform
Discover LudwigSuggestions(4)
Exact(1)
Baseline measures were compared between groups for each part of the study using independent t tests for continuous data and chi-square tests for categorical data.
Similar(59)
When a statistical trend (P < 0.1) was evident with at least one of the between-group differences with glimepiride, within-group changes from baseline to final measures were compared with dependent Student t tests or the Wilcoxon matched-pairs test as appropriate.
The baseline characteristics and outcome measures were compared among those receiving versus those not receiving adequate treatment (chi-square test of proportions, and Wilcoxon rank sum test for continuous variables).
Baseline patient characteristics and study measures were compared among sites.
The HRQOL measures were compared to baseline and between the other data points at 24, 48 and 72 weeks (or 24 weeks post treatment) in responders and non-responders separately (Tables 3 & 4).
This comprised any form of control or waitlist group, or a multiple-measures design in which baseline measurements were compared with post-treatment outcomes and follow-up.
Mean changes from the baseline in each outcome measure were compared between each active group and placebo by analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with baseline values as covariates.
Changes in strength and flexibility measured were compared at baseline and after 8 weeks of training using a repeated measures analysis of variance.
The baseline (0 wk) values of each outcome measure were compared with the values obtained at 2, 4 and 8 wk by Generalized Linear Model (GLM) repeated measures followed by post-hoc analysis[ 18].
These include magnetograms showing H, D, Z and F as well as F difference, often called closing error plots, where F derived from the H and Z baseline corrected fluxgate measurements is compared against measured F from the PPM.
QLS measure subscores and SF-36 factor scores were compared between Early Responder and Early Non-responder groups using an analysis of covariance model that included baseline score of the measure being compared, investigator, and responder status.
Write better and faster with AI suggestions while staying true to your unique style.
Since I tried Ludwig back in 2017, I have been constantly using it in both editing and translation. Ever since, I suggest it to my translators at ProSciEditing.

Justyna Jupowicz-Kozak
CEO of Professional Science Editing for Scientists @ prosciediting.com